BAHADUR SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Criminal Misc. No. 5583-M of 1997 and Criminal Misc. No. 6051-M of 1997 are being disposed of by this common order since the questions of law and fact involved in these two cases are similar.

(2.) On 16-6-1993 the Insecticide Inspector inspected the shop of M/s Dhanju Pesticide of which Bahadur Singh is the proprietor. He took samples of the Insecticide Regor 30% E.C. which were admittedly in the original packing (tins). On analysis the insecticide was found to be misbranded. The Insecticide Inspector then filed a complaint before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ludhiana, on 1-12-1994 against (1) Dhanju pesticide, the dealer, (2) Bahadur Singh, Proprietor of M/s Dhanju Pesticide Store (3) Delhi Agriculture Store through its proprietor Halkiat Singh, the distributor, (4) Prem Parkash Aggarwal, Managing Director of M/s Hindustan Pulverising Mills, the Manufacturer and (5) M. N. Murli Kumar, Chief Chemist of the Manufacturer under Ss. 3K(1), 17, 18 and 33 of Insecticide Act, 1968 for selling, stocking, distributing and manufacturing the sub-standard pesticide. On 1-12-1994, the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalandhar, ordered the accused to be summoned.

(3.) That is why Bahadur Singh the proprietor of M/s. Dhanju Pesticide Store and Dhanju Pesticides have filed Cr. Misc. 5583-M 1997 while M/s. Delhi Agriculture store has filed Cr. Misc. 6051-M-1997 under S. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the complaint and the summoning order. According to them, the samples were taken from the original packing and it is not alleged that they did not store it properly or tampered with the same, that shelf life of the insecticide expired in July 1994 whereas the complaint was filed on 1-12-1994 and, therefore, the petitioners lost valuable opportunity of having the insecticide re-analysed which is a right granted under S. 24 of the Insecticide Act. They also contend that the manufacturer of this insecticide in question was not arraigned as an accused whereas the Managing Director and the Chief Chemist have been impleaded and, therefore, the Managing Director and the Chief Chemist filed Cr. Misc. 21202-M of 1995 for quashing the same complaint, and the same has also been allowed by the order of this Court dated 5-2-1996.